From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF8A21382C5 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2018 22:09:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 55F41E0BA0; Sat, 31 Mar 2018 22:09:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 209FBE0B09 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2018 22:09:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot (d202-252.icpnet.pl [109.173.202.252]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DCE01335D7B; Sat, 31 Mar 2018 22:09:37 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1522534173.836.6.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Social Contract clean-up From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2018 00:09:33 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <23227.50997.942551.336507@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <11815711.Ukc4K8cNtV@porto> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.24.6 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 2b813672-1719-4d85-a49b-a5f1f42ada78 X-Archives-Hash: d1b76bd68ac234ec7ce1e2e81fc7f20a W dniu sob, 31.03.2018 o godzinie 16∶01 -0600, użytkownik Daniel Robbins napisał: > On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 3:48 PM, Daniel Robbins wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 2:30 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > > > > You act as if Gentoo is doing something egregious here. In fact, I'm > > > not aware of any organization that operates in the manner you suggest. > > > If you were aware of one you'd be citing it instead of arguing in the > > > abstract. > > > > > > > Please pardon my language, but I think your comment merits this kind of > > response -- are you fucking kidding me? So you are unaware of any > > organization that produces software which solicits feedback from the people > > who actually use the software? EVERY organization does this. Find me one > > that doesn't. The burden of proof is on you. > > > > Also, Rich, I think it's unfortunate that you don't see the benefit of > having input from users in regards to software development. We clearly > disagree on this topic, so I don't see the point of continuing discussion > with you on this list. > Daniel, Your tone is inappropriate, and I really dislike the kind of populism you're trying here. I really don't know if you're truly concerned about users, or merely trying to use them as tools to satisfy your hunger for power. Yes, soliciting feedback from users is important. However, I don't know of any entity that gives 'point blank' ability to *decide* on the project to anyone who claims to be an user. If you disagree, then please try this experiment in Funtoo. After what you've done here already, I'm pretty sure you'll find enough 'users' wishing to remove you from the project or otherwise prove how broken this concept is. And yes, people actually do things like that. Not really from malice, no. Just because they see something completely broken and feel that their arguments are ignored. They do it to make things better, just as you try to claim you're doing. -- Best regards, Michał Górny